Extremists? The Tale of the Two Joes

"I think we've got to be prepared to take aggressive military action against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq," Lieberman said. "And to me, that would include a strike over the border into Iran, where we have good evidence that they have a base at which they are training these people coming back into Iraq to kill our soldiers."

On a related note, noted "extremist" hunter Joe Klein discovers that there is no such thing as a precipitous withdrawal:

In other words, all the yammering by various politicians about bringing the troops home by March 2008 is nonsense. Which is not to say that a withdrawal shouldn't start now--it's just going to take a fairly long time.

Um, when it was proposed Joe, March 2008 was more than a year away. Then Joe plays his backdoor "oppose withdrawal" game:

What is the nature of the Iraqi government that the remaining division-plus (20,000 troops) will be "protecting" and the nature of the Iraqi military that another 10,000 US troops will be training? No small question. But gradually, over the past few weeks, we've seen various U.S. military and intelligence officers say that the odds of an inclusive Shi'ite-Sunni-Kurd government are practically nonexistant. That means it will be a Shi'ite government. That implies we're going to have pick sides among the Shi'ite factions. It also means Sunni-Shi'ite war without end. It also means possible chaos.
...And finally, it means that these neat military plans are taking place in a vacuum: Without some sense of the political shape of the Iraqi government, we can plan away to little effect. As ever, the military and political aspects of this catastrophe seem to be running on separate tracks. I can't imagine how dreadful the U.S. withdrawal to Kuwait will be if it occurs under fire. Again, what a mess. And again and again.

(Emphasis supplied.) What is Joe saying in the end here? We can't leave because of the chaos. Joe can't imagine how dreadful the US withdrawal to Kuwait will be? But the status quo is an acceptable and imaginable dreadfulness apparently.

This is the game now. Pretend you are against the Iraq Debacle but oh so reluctantly oppose withdrawal because of the "dreadfulness" of withdrawal.

That dog won't hunt. The situation is this. The Iraq Debacle ensures dreadfulness whatever we do. The question now is how do we start moving to end our part of the dreadfulness.

In order to begin reorienting America's strategy abroad, any new U.S. administration must begin with Iraq. Until the United States is able to move beyond Iraq, it will not have the time, energy, political capital or resources to attempt anything else of any great significance.

....The administration has — surprise — tried to play up fears of the consequences of a drawdown in Iraq (which is always described as a Vietnam-style withdrawal down to zero). It predicts that this will lead to chaos, violence and a victory for terrorists. When we listen to these forecasts, it is worth remembering that every administration prediction about Iraq has been wrong.

....As for the broader Sunni-Shiite civil war, even if we improve the security situation temporarily, once we leave the struggle for power will resume. At some point, the Shiites and the Sunnis will make a deal. Until then, we can at best keep a lid on the violence but not solve its causes. To stay indefinitely is simply to keep a finger in the dike, fearful of the outcome. Better to consolidate what gains we have, limit our losses, let time work for us and move on.

I think it is pretty clear who the extremists on Iraq and Iran are today. They oppose withdrawal from Iraq and urge attacks on Iran. Two of the extremists go by the name of Joe. Lieberman and Klein.

Good thing that the Iraqis are not listening to Lieberman cause the 'homeland' would be in big trouble .

"And to me, that would include a strike over the border into Iran, where we have good evidence that they have a base at which they are training these people coming back into Iraq to kill our soldiers."

The Iraqis would come here where they have good evidence that we have a base at which they are training these people coming into Iraq to kill our soldiers.

Our foreign policy needs to be founded on basic principles. Do those principles include imperialism, in which we use aggressive force to exploit other people's natural resources?

If the answer is "no, we are not imperialists," then we need to get out of Iraq. That should be the moral compass upon which policy and actions are founded.

Unfortunately, Bush Inc. has created "facts on the ground," which are hard to ignore. The most challenging is Shia dominated political power in Iraq. If the US leaves Iraq, Iran will fill the vacuum. This is the real reason US is now unwilling to leave for Republican and Democrat alike. Even the Democrats never talk about 100% withdrawal, with the exception of presidential candidate Richardson who is defining this as an issue.

So, the US strategy options that are unfolding are 1) maintain a presence in Iraq for ever, or 2) attack and weaken Iran before leaving Iraq.

Last summer (2006) the US and Israel conducted a military experiment in Lebanon. They tried to route Hezbollah and failed. That should be a lesson about the risks of attacking Iran, who helped Hezbollah prepare for such an attack.

novels can be fun to read. Attempting to base a real world argument as to what present reality would be if past events had been different is speculating. We don't and can't know and one person damning another's speculation is pretty pointless.

I will suggest that it is a strong possibility that US neo-imperialism in the Middle East and Central Asia has made radical Islam more broadly popular than it would have been otherwise.

That's speculation as is my belief that pro-abortion, anti-school prayer, etc. domestic politics have made fundamentalist Christianity more broadly popular than it might have become if it's appeal did not have these "assaults" on values to reach some. Similarly it may be the "political" (anti-American) messages that strengthen Islamic radicalism by giving its leaders the "assaults" on their values and autonomy by the USA to attract people who might not be seduced by the religious aspects themselves.

At the Fort Leavenworth, Kansas Army base, military chaplains have been holding Bible classes for US soldiers using study guides that appear to be anti-Semitic.

The Fort Leavenworth chaplains have posted these lesson plans on the Internet under a web address that is maintained by the federal government, giving off the appearance that the religious materials in question are endorsed by the Pentagon. Moreover, disseminating the ideology via a government funded web site may violate the law mandating the separation between church and state.

If our soldiers were not in Iraq, they would not be subject to these attacks

Correct as long as we specify "Iraq" as the location.

Is it your claim that we should limit our foreign policy reponses to only those locations that we have a reasonable expectation that we not be attacked?

And what would you consider reasonable? We have a host of historical references that show that the radical Moslems will attack our military where they can. I will mention one. USS Cole.

And doesn't this direct question from Peter Arnett to OBL, and OBL's answer give the real answer??

REPORTER: Mr. Bin Ladin, will the end of the United States' presence in Saudi Arabia, their withdrawal, will that end your call for jihad against the United States and against the US ?

BIN LADIN:..... So, the driving-away jihad against the US does not stop with its withdrawal from the Arabian peninsula, but rather it must desist from aggressive intervention against Muslims in the whole world.

The events that affected my soul in a direct way started in 1982 when America permitted the Israelis to invade Lebanon and the American Sixth Fleet helped them in that. This bombardment began and many were killed and injured and others were terrorised and displaced.

I couldn't forget those moving scenes, blood and severed limbs, women and children sprawled everywhere. Houses destroyed along with their occupants and high rises demolished over their residents, rockets raining down on our home without mercy.

The situation was like a crocodile meeting a helpless child, powerless except for his screams. Does the crocodile understand a conversation that doesn't include a weapon? And the whole world saw and heard but it didn't respond.

In those difficult moments many hard-to-describe ideas bubbled in my soul, but in the end they produced an intense feeling of rejection of tyranny, and gave birth to a strong resolve to punish the oppressors.

And as I looked at those demolished towers in Lebanon, it entered my mind that we should punish the oppressor in kind and that we should destroy towers in America in order that they taste some of what we tasted and so that they be deterred from killing our women and children.

And yes, he meant in the whole world. Rather inclusive, I would say. I'm sure you'll agree.

And yes if the soldiers were not in Iraq, they would not be subject to these attacks in Iraq. I'm sure you'll also agree.

I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend -- but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.

The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality.

"We Create Our Own Reality"?

I think it is pretty clear who the extremists on Iraq and Iran are today. They oppose withdrawal from Iraq and urge attacks on Iran.

No, you have no idea if what he wrote is what he regards as aggressive intervention. In fact, he may regard making Moslem cabdrivers take drunken fares carryig a cocktail from a bar as aggressive intervention.

That's funny edger... really, it is. But you want to read some really funny stuff...

In cases where a serious insurgency cannot be managed, the state and its supporters might consider an approach designed to deliberately encourage the insurgency to mutate into something less dangerous such as an organized criminal organization. This is never desirable, but there may be rare instances where organized crime is less of a threat than sustained insurgency. Call this strategic methadone. [p.52]

again here, ppj. The conficts that quote creates in you must be nearly unbearable considering that you often claim to be so concerned with National Security, and that it is from Dr. Steven Metz, Chairman of the Regional Strategy and Planning Department and Research Professor of National Security Affairs at the Strategic Studies Institute of the US Army War College and is a recognition that what is called "terrorism" is in many cases probably best dealt with by criminal justice systems rather than military action that exacerbates it, in cases where a serious insurgency cannot be managed by military action.

It is, IOW, a repudiation of Bush doctrine, coming from a US Army intelligence institute that deals regularly, intelligently, and professionally, with National Security Affairs.

If you were honest you would have provided the context of the preceding paragraph to that one, where Metz, discussing "Rethinking Counterinsurgency" says"

At the strategic level, the risk to the United States is not that insurgents will "win" in the traditional sense, take over their country, and shift it from a partner to an enemy. It is that complex internal conflicts, especially ones involving insurgency, will generate other adverse effects: the destabilization of regions, resource flows, and markets; the blossoming of transnational crime; humanitarian disasters; transnational terrorism; and so forth. Given this, the U.S. goal should not automatically be the defeat of the insurgents by the regime (which may be impossible, particularly when the partner regime is only half-heartedly committed to it), but the rapid resolution of the conflict. In other words, a quick and sustainable outcome which integrates most of the insurgents into the national power structure is less damaging to U.S. national interests than a protracted conflict which leads to the complete destruction of the insurgents. Protracted conflict, not insurgent victory, is the threat. [p.50]

But that might have caused your giggle fit to become uncontrollable.

Thanks for providing a link to the Out Of Iraq Bloggers Caucus main site, btw.

You cannot oppress people for ever. You allow it to fester, it only gets worse. We would have been much better off, if we had stopped supporting the Shah in 1953. What eventually happened in 1979 was, in fact predictably worse. Do you think we could have propped the Shah up forever? Then what? Have you thought this through at all?

BTW, the actual hostage crises was not predictable. Had something similar ever happened before? No. What was predictable was adverse consequences to the US of some unknown sort.

We do know that the Sha was moving in a westerly direction and that the radicals were going the opposite way. You are quick to complain about the Sha's secret service, but I hear nothing about the deaths of thise condemned by the radicals...including 16 year old girls..

You're response is a gratitiously insulting insinuation. The rules on this site do not permit me to do justice with the language I literally saying outloud, but even your obtuse mind should be able to figure it out.

You are quick to complain about the Sha's secret service, but I hear nothing about the deaths of thise condemned by the radicals...including 16 year old girls..

I am not sure what you mean by "thise", I assume you mean anyone abused by whatever radical regime you are talking about.

The fact that I am complaining about the one does not translate to support for any other. How you could jump to such an illogical conclusion is beyond comprehension. My first grader grandson would not make such a mistake.

In fact it should go without saying that I don't support abuse by any secret police.

simply another case of repressive dictatorships propped up by US imperialism for it's own purposes and benefit. What you call "radicals" were, and are, simply the people of Iran angered and rising to oppose that imperialism and take their country back from that dictatorship.

The problems, including the 79 hostage taking, were caused by that imperialist intervention, which is again doing it's best with the pressure on Iran to crate similar problems. Hence the rise of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who would never have garnered the support he needed to become president of Iran had not US meddling focused the Iranian people attention on a common enemy.

The policies you espouse are the cause of the very problems the US runs into, because they are simple minded continuation of the types of interventions summarized and described in the CATO article above.

History repeats itself, when ignored and not taken as lessons.

The WH aide described in Suskind's article was correct when he said "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality". He just wasn't bright enough to understand his own words.

Frankly, the "We're an empire..." quote is just too perfect. I need more proof to believe it real.

Our actions in Iran were during the coldest days of the Cold War, and was done to insure that the Soviets did not obtain a warm water port. You can complain about the methods, even if they needed to be done to accomplish the goal, but the fact is it was geopolitics, just as we helped the Soviets during WWII, the Greeks later, etc, and etc.

In any event, the results were 16 years of stability, and an Iran that was becoming westernized. Carter's actions undercut that and opened the door to the radicals. What you need to do is decide if you think a secular imperfect Iran that was on our side was worse than a theocratic imperfect Iran that spawned the radical Moslem hordes we now see threatening the world.

If I can believe what you have previously written it appears that what you want is the US out, irrespective of how that would affect the US.

I had written:Insurgents don't use car bombs to kill civilians or give booby trapped dolls to children. That is terrorist work, edgey. (quoted from my previous comment)
You answered:That is not "terrorist work" in the way you try to twist it to mean, at all. It is the work of the Iraqi people - the very people BushCo thought would throw flowers - fighting to kick the US out of Iraq":

What you need to do is decide if you think a secular imperfect Iran that was on our side was worse than a theocratic imperfect Iran that spawned the radical Moslem hordes we now see threatening the world.

That very issue is what Jim Wallis wishes he could sit and talk about with George W. Bush. That's impossible now, he says. He is no longer invited to the White House.

"Faith can cut in so many ways," he said. "If you're penitent and not triumphal, it can move us to repentance and accountability and help us reach for something higher than ourselves. That can be a powerful thing, a thing that moves us beyond politics as usual, like Martin Luther King did. But when it's designed to certify our righteousness -- that can be a dangerous thing. Then it pushes self-criticism aside. There's no reflection.

"Where people often get lost is on this very point," he said after a moment of thought. "Real faith, you see, leads us to deeper reflection and not -- not ever -- to the thing we as humans so very much want."

Christians believe that they are flawed and seek grace through repentance.

The flipside being of course that they also see themselves as sinners no matter what they do, which opens the door to "ends justify the means" behavior since God is the only judge of consequence. As long as they seek repentance before they die it's all OK.

Also, are you really asserting that there are no Christian Democrats? Or are they self-hating Christians the way that Republicans are self-hating conservatives?

Maybe you're not trying to say anything, since you're flyby posting other peoples' words. Very Cheney if so!

Actually I drive a Ford.... and have been driving by here since 2003. One of the disadvantages of nested comments is that it leads to IM type "comversations." Please follow me:

If you go back to Edger's link to Suskind's article, you will see it as a lead in that the Religious Right are all fruit cakes, etc.

My quote of Sanchez just provides info on how the Right sees the Left..said another way, the Left is very flexible over the state of your soul, but is desperately concerned over the trans fats in your food.... ;-)

I have no idea as to how many Christian Democrats there are, and really don't care.

As to your self-hating comment, I read somewhere that the Right hates themselves but love the country... where as the Left is the reverse..

Being an Independent social liberal I don't believe much of what either side says, including the above. I do wish that the Left would show as much concern over radical Moslem terrorists as they do Oral Roberts.....

I only label those who are ignonant and uninformed, ignonant and uninformed.

Also its not that you are disagreeing with me, its that you are disagreeing with historical facts (which from experience is not unusual for you). The CIA during Ike's presidency did support a coup to throw out a democratically selected leader-Mossadegh and replace him with the Shah. Its a fact, Jack. Every President from Ike on, Not just President Carter, kept the Shah in power with military support and by training the Shah's secret police in some pretty nasty methods. Also a fact, Jack.

In 1979, the people (under the leadership of what I personally would call fanatics) threw out the Shah, and for better or worse, went after the people they saw as the Shah's enablers- resulting in a hostage crises*.

So yes there is a direct line from 1953 to 1979. The Cato institute article linked to above gives a pretty good history of the broad outlines of that chapter in US history. You might learn from it.

BTW, the article suggests in 1979 President Carter thought 1953 was "ancient history". If true- and I haven't verified it- I would disagree with President Carter (not for the first time) and I wouldn't call him ignorant and uninformed. Just wrong this time. See, I don't call everyone who disagrees with me ignorant and uninformed....

FN: You should be happy about the hostage crises. Without it, Reagan would be a footnote in history, not a US President. The conservative movement as you know it, may not have seized power and plundered the little guy in the guise of protecting him from big, bad, scary liberals.

The CIA during Ike's presidency did support a coup to throw out a democratically selected leader-Mossadegh and replace him with the Shah.

No where did I make any comment indicating that I thought this didn't happen. You just assume and take off with your attack.

In fact, my comment to jarober regarding blame for 1953 says: "They have! They have!" Now, I am sorry that was too subtle for you. But people who find that must call other ignorant and uninformed in an exchange of ideas often find that such comments are their last defense.

As for what Carter thought about 1953, fine. The point is that he was wrong. Dead wrong as the millions who have since been killed by the emboldened radicals in December 1979.

And if you think Carter could have won had this not happened, I guess you weren't around in 1980 for the energy problems, 18-20% prime and 18% home loan mortages...and an economy that was as flat as an overcooked hoe cake.

So you think I'm ignorant and uninformed?? Well, based on what I've seem here I think that you are an elitist who is overly impressed with her own talents.

I was around in 1980. Up until the last 2 weeks or so, Reagan was losing. Yes I do think the hostage crises tipped the scale. I may be overly impressed with my talents, but I at least bow to facts and I willing to learn. If that makes me an elitist, so be it.

You, OTOH, dispute historical facts and refuse to learn. You tell me what that makes you.

The most important event of the entire 1980 presidential campaign was the second presidential debate, which was held on the Friday before the election. Over the course of two hours, the entire race changed drastically, and what was considered an extremely tight race with the President slightly ahead became a comfortable Republican victory.

Yes it was a great comeback. I know you lived through it, but memories over time often dim. As Yogi Berra would say, "you can look it up" and with your dim memory, maybe you should.

Reached today [June 5] by phone in Baghdad, Nassar al Rubaie, the head of Al-Sadr bloc in Iraq's Council of Representatives, said, "this new binding resolution will prevent the government from renewing the UN mandate without the parliament's permission. They'll need to come back to us by the end of the year, and we will definitely refuse to extend the UN mandate without conditions." Rubaie added: "there will be no such a thing as a blank check for renewing the UN mandate anymore, any renewal will be attached to a timetable for a complete withdrawal."

Without the cover of the UN mandate, the continued presence of coalition troops in Iraq would become, in law as in fact, an armed occupation, at which point it would no longer be politically tenable to support it. While polls show that most Iraqis consider U.S. forces to be occupiers rather than liberators or peace-keepers - 92 percent of respondents said as much in a 2004 survey by the Independent Institute for Administration and Civil Society Studies - the UN mandate confers an aura of legitimacy on the continuing presence of foreign troops on Iraq's streets, even four years after the fall of Saddam Hussein.

The resolution was initiated when a majority of Iraqi lawmakers signed a non-binding legislative petition two weeks ago that called on the Iraqi government to demand a withdrawal of all foreign troops from the country.

If the Iraqi lawmakers are actually successful in ripping away the fig leaf of legality from the occupation it will be very interesting to see whether Bush and his last remaining defenders simply carry on as if nothing has changed. I notice this development doesn't seem to have been picked up by the U.S. media at all.

From this most interesting article in the New York Times we learn that the Iraqis have a unique word in their language, one not shared by other Arabic-speaking lands. The word is sahel, and it means "to utterly defeat and humiliate someone by dragging his corpse through the streets." As the author points out, having a single word for such a concept is evidence that it is a powerful element of the culture. Knowing about this certainly casts new light on the seemingly unquenchable violence between religious factions in that unhappy land. Given this new knowledge, I have a few questions.

1 Was there someone in Washington, D.C., back in the years 2000, 2001, 2002, whose job it was to know such things about Iraq? 2 Did he? 3 If so, did he tell anyone? 4 If not, why not? 5 Did anyone at some point tell the President or someone he talks to? 6 Is there now someone like a Director of Things We Should Know About Countries We Propose to Occupy? 7 Does he, or do any of his doubtless numerous deputy directors, know about sahel? 8 Failing that, is there at least a staff person, somewhere in the bowels of the bureaucracy, who knows about this sort of thing? 9 Is there any way for such information to make its way upward to where it might do some good? 10 If anyone in charge of anything at all knew about this fairly relevant aspect of Iraqi culture, how was it taken into account? 11 Why didn't that do any good? 12 If no one knew, shouldn't someone be embarrassed, and maybe resign? 13 Is there someone in Washington, D.C., just now whose job it is to know things about Iran? 14 Does he? 15 Does anyone listen to him?

Why did you and do you support doing everything possible towards creating that theocratic imperfect Iran?

Do you still beat your wife?

And why do you do you support doing everything possible towards creating the same problem again?

Do you still beat your wife?

Why are you such an extremist radical and a terrorist, jim?

Do you still beat your wife?

I doubt that you'll answer them though. You'll just run away and hide and refuse to look in the mirror again, won't you?

Or won't you?

Do you still beat your wife?

What we do know is that this is the strategy you endorse for the WOT.

In cases where a serious insurgency cannot be managed, the state and its supporters might consider an approach designed to deliberately encourage the insurgency to mutate into something less dangerous such as an organized criminal organization. This is never desirable, but there may be rare instances where organized crime is less of a threat than sustained insurgency. Call this strategic methadone.

You know, I never did figure out how you are going to turn terrorists in criminals....